Is there absolutely any historical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?

[zaffiroborant]

Just discovered this pretty in-depth blog post from Jeff Lindsay on your question, posted on the same day you posted your question, actually.

mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/02/evaluating-book-of-mormon-claims-where.html

Sorry but I just can’t find it in me to take seriously someone who says or repeats this:
Dr. John E. Clark as Professor of Anthropology at BYU:

Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are.

Really the whole blog is nonsense. for instance this:
Jeff Lindsay:

Dresden Codex, one of four surviving pre-Columbian Maya books. It shows a sacrificial victim with a tree growing from his heart, a literal portrayal of the metaphor preached in Alma chapter 32.

A perfunctory check finds that the “tree of life” is a common element in religion world wide including Christianity, where Smith took it originally.

And then this bit which is particularly ridiculous:

Even more specific, consider Riplakish, the tenth Jaredite king, an oppressive tyrant who forced slaves to construct buildings and produce fancy goods. Among the items he commissioned about 1200 B.C. was an exceedingly beautiful throne. The earliest civilization in Mesoamerica is known for its elaborate stone thrones. How did Joseph Smith get this detail right?

Maybe because elaborate thrones were well known from say France, England and so on.

Lindsay presents nothing absolutely nothing.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Sorry but I just can’t find it in me to take seriously someone who says or repeats this:

Really the whole blog is nonsense. for instance this:

A perfunctory check finds that the “tree of life” is a common element in religion world wide including Christianity, where Smith took it originally.

And then this bit which is particularly ridiculous:

Maybe because elaborate thrones were well known from say France, England and so on.

Lindsay presents nothing absolutely nothing.

I am a little curious why Mormon beliefs are so different than what the Book of Mormon says. I mean it seems to me that Mormonism should be Modalist and not Henotheistic. If Mormons really believe that is the most correct book ever written then shouldn’t their beliefs correlate with it?

 

[superwimp]

I am a little curious why Mormon beliefs are so different than what the Book of Mormon says. I mean it seems to me that Mormonism should be Modalist and not Henotheistic. If Mormons really believe that is the most correct book ever written then shouldn’t their beliefs correlate with it?

It also has something to say about priestcraft yet that’s what they practice.

2 Nephi 26:29": 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

 

[Chris-WA]

Just discovered this pretty in-depth blog post from Jeff Lindsay on your question, posted on the same day you posted your question, actually.

mormanity.blogspot.com/2017/02/evaluating-book-of-mormon-claims-where.html

Sorry NeruoTypical, if you can’t see this for what it really is I don’t know what to tell you. You need to look deeper. What Lindsay discusses is not evidence of anything other than “anything is possible.” Not good.